[mfd]

I just wrote a post about why I work certain shifts. I ended the post with a question and I wanted to post that question here.

Would you work 80 hrs/week for 10 years or 20 hrs/week for 40 years? In either case you end with enough money to retire comfortably for the rest of your life.

 

[Rickson9]

I would rather work less per week, so probably the 40 hrs a week for 20 yrs or 20 hrs a week for 40 yrs.

I currently work around 20 hrs a week (hopefully not for 40 yrs

 

[stephenheath]

Wow, that's a bit of a tough call Before I met my wife, it would have been 80 hours... but of course since that's when you're starting out and getting little pay, it didn't shorten to 10 years

I'd like to work 20 hours a week, but I'm too old now, as 40 years would be until I was 77, and I'm still hoping I'll be able to retire at 67 at the latest.

Guess I'm stuck with 40 hours a week

 

[steve41]

Hands down... I would rather (if I were a 25year old) work 10 years at 120K per year than 40 years at $30K by a country mile.

The 120K guy will be able to enjoy a maximum lifestyle of 31681 annually, whereas the 30K guy would only attain a 23685 annual lifestyle.

It is a tricky compute, but essentially what happens is that the 120K for 10yrs guy amasses a much larger chunk of capital. The compounding effect is more pronounced than the 30K for 40 year guy.

This was based on a 6% rate, 2% inflation, indexed salary and full CPP/OAS for both. Living in BC.

 

[MGL]

I'd rather front load my leisure time and enjoyment and have to work for a longer period than front load my work and possibly never live to see the benefits.

 

[STone]

Family comes first. The most I would want to work is 40hrs/week. I have 2 young children and I want to be there for them at every opportunity. I actually was given the opportunity to move to a different city a while ago for a sales rep job that would have paid a huge salary (close to double what I currently make), but it would have required a tonne of travel. I just could not do that to my kids. The job I have right now is perfect for a family guy like myself. Very little travel, no required overtime, and the ability to be flexible with my hours if required. I am willing to give up early retirement to make sure I raise my kids right.

 

[CanadianCapitalist]

Family comes first. The most I would want to work is 40hrs/week. I have 2 young children and I want to be there for them at every opportunity.

I feel the same way. Young children grow up so fast. Our boys are 3-1/2 now and we were watching the baby videos the other day and wondering where the time went. I'd rather take it easy now, spend some precious time with them and work a bit longer if I have to.

 

[steve41]

To recap what I said above..... the 120X10 guy will be able to enjoy $8000 per year -every year for the rest of his life- more than the 30X40 guy.

That's $666 a month more (net after-tax) to spend on beer and groceries for the next 70 years. No contest!

That's a 25% reduction in lifestyle. This isn't just a few cases of beer, folks!

 

[The Happy Wanderer]

It is a tough call. Because of my age, I would probably elect to work 80 hours a week for ten years. It would be a long haul, but probably worth it in the end.

However working 40 hours a week for 20 years isn't that bad. I would still only be early 40s.

It really comes down to time. How do you value your time? You cannot make more time, but you can always make more money.


Hmmm

Good question

 

[MoneyGal]

Not particularly by design, but I did the 80/10 thing. I established a very successful sole proprietorship business in my mid-20's; worked very hard for the next 10 years; saved a ton of money; then had kids and now work much, much less.

My spouse also did something similar.

What that has meant is that we have a very decent financial position although neither my spouse nor I work full-time (well, to be fair, he works a 'regular' 40-hour week or so. But he doesn't work the 60-hour weeks of many of his peers). I feel very lucky that things worked out this way for me.

 

[AshleyT]

I'd rather front load my leisure time and enjoyment and have to work for a longer period than front load my work and possibly never live to see the benefits.

Sounds good now, but maybe we should ask you again in 10 years. Time is precious, no doubt, but 10 years goes by one way or another, and as Steve41 has highlighted, you would be much further ahead in 10 short years, than working half time for 40 years. 40 years is a really long time. How many people on this board have been alive for 40 years, let alone working for 40?

I like to work, but someday I would like to not "have to work" if I choose. There are also risks to employability to consider such as restructuring, job loss, elimination of demand for your skills, disability etc. The longer your working career, the greater the risk. Better to bank the savings early. Less risk, more disposable income, more freedom.

Family comes first. The most I would want to work is 40hrs/week. I have 2 young children and I want to be there for them at every opportunity.

No doubt. However, I have girlfriends who say that they enjoy going to work while the kids are young. It gives the kids the parents a break from each other, gives the parent some daytime adult interaction, and refreshes the relationship between the parent and child. You appreciate the little ones that much more when you see them again. Plus, many kids love daycare/caregivers. I have noticed that my girlfriends who have gone back to work at least part time seem much happier and more well-adjusted to motherhood than those that stay home 100%. My observation only. Besides, doing a good solid week's work is great for the self-esteem, mind, and soul. No need to be shy about a little hard work.

 

[MoneyGal]

I feel compelled to say that moms who stay at home with their kids are absolutely doing a solid week's worth of hard work each and every week.

 

[AshleyT]

Agreed.....but I didn't mean to imply anything to the contrary (she quickly adds in earnest, but also in an effort to keep the discussion on topic )

 

[steve41]

Another good reason to concentrate on the high salary over the shorter time is that your net worth gets to grow much larger, faster. This will appeal to your advisor/broker of course because... well, I think you know why.

I might just start up a thread on the value of inclusive financial planning vs the simple "know your net worth" metric. When you go to see your advisor, and all he asks is the simple-minded 'how much can you afford to plunk in your RRSP this year' and immediately launches into the "let's look at your investments", then you know he really isn't into full financial planning.

 

[Kathryn]

I voted 20 hrs/week for 40 years. That way I feel semi retired all the time!

 

[Bullseye]

20hrs for 40 years for sure.

In my 20's, no way I would have given up the backpacker lifestyle we enjoyed, travelling to over 20 countries. No regrets there that I would be wealthier now, but poorer in life experiences that are best had when young.

Now in my 30's, no way I'm giving up my time with my two young kids to work more for later gain.

Steve's calculations are likely correct, but doesn't change my mind one bit.

 

[markievicz]

Maybe I don't get the question and am being no fun, nothing new there, but this all seems very silly and theoretical to me. Do those of you "voting" for 20 hours over 40 years actually live that lifestyle? Maybe you do, but I literally know no-one in their thirties who does even if they have the option. And how many of us who nominally work 40 hours actually work that few on a given average week? Or will be able to escape it after 20 years?

 

[Assetologist]

I personally decided to cut back to about 50-60 hours a week from about 70-80+ and it has made a huge difference in my quality of life.
Now I have most weekends and most evenings free as well as 12 weeks of holidays each year.

I plan to sustain this level for another 10-15 years then work 'part-time' for another 5-10 depending on my interest.

 

[mfd]

Maybe I don't get the question and am being no fun, nothing new there, but this all seems very silly and theoretical to me. Do those of you "voting" for 20 hours over 40 years actually live that lifestyle? Maybe you do, but I literally know no-one in their thirties who does even if they have the option. And how many of us who nominally work 40 hours actually work that few on a given average week? Or will be able to escape it after 20 years?

A lot of people who start their own business work long hours to get the business up and running. Once its establishe they hire employees and cut back on their hours worked...potentially to the point where they only work a few hours a week.

 

[Rickson9]

Maybe I don't get the question and am being no fun, nothing new there, but this all seems very silly and theoretical to me. Do those of you "voting" for 20 hours over 40 years actually live that lifestyle? Maybe you do, but I literally know no-one in their thirties who does even if they have the option. And how many of us who nominally work 40 hours actually work that few on a given average week? Or will be able to escape it after 20 years?

I do and I'm in my 30s. For me there are no significant financial benefits to working more.

I posted about this career in the Frugal section.